Hit Car Parked Outside of Bay

Barnabylovesicecream

Just reread my post- I wonder with hindsight if it was some kind of scam. They wanted me to move the car so that they could claim damage?

lisyloo

It's probably not a very helpful observation though given that OP has stated that she is an expectant mother.

True, and I agree it's not often a practical option.
But we do sometimes discuss things outside of the OPs immediate problem which may be useful to others.

The excess is only applicable to damage/repair to your own vehicle, no excess is deductable for the 3rd party's repair costs.

Good point and yes suprising it's been missed.
However for £432, it's marginal as to whether the loss of NCB plus premium increases on ALL motoring policies for the next 3-5 years would be worth it.

I recently did some calcs for myself (for £700 new wheel - pothole damage) and it wasn't worth claiming.
The calc is very dependent on circumstances because it depends on whether you have NCB protection, how many motoring policies you have or are named on, your general risk (riskier drivers see much higher loadings) and whether you have other claims.

My gut feeling is that £432 would be better off paid direct, but you can do quotes to work out the loading and multiply it up.

Quentin

lisyloo wrote: »

It's probably not a very helpful observation though given that OP has stated that she is an expectant mother.

True......

No, its not true.

The OP has actually stated he is an expectant father!

Though expectant fathers do need to take care of themselves, and should leave hard pushing to the expectant mother who needs to get used to pushing hard.

lisyloo

They were quite clear that if I touched it to bounce it out of the way the owner could take action against me

If you do damage a car in an attempt to move it then yes you would be liable for damage.
If you did no damage then there is very little theorectical risk.

The police would help but you'd need to be more forceful to insist.
They were simply fobbing you off to hopefully avoid the effort.
I found (what I thought was) a stray dog before Xmas.
The police said they couldn't help and asked me if I could keep the dog over Xmas !!!
They were having a laff.
More like the warden didn't want to make an unnecessary journey, so it's standard tactics to put you off in the hope that the situation resolves itself (which it did as it was a neighbours dog).

I once moved a car by using some stiff packing tape round the window to pull the door knob up, taking the handbrake off and pushing it (it was on my land).
I did not do damage.
I was told (on some forum) that there is a technicality called TWOC (taking without consent) but seems to me to be unlikely in the extreme that you'd face a conviction if you've moved a car a matter of feet without doing any damage.
Of course you do face the risk that someone might invent some damage or get agressive.
So you do have to think twice before touching someone else's car.

lisyloo

No, its not true.

I meant true that it's not a helpful observation (bouncing cars) for reasons already mentioned i.e.

there are risks in moving other cars
might risk damage or a claim for it or aggression
not always possible due to space restrictions
can take time
needs manpower
can do you back in etc. etc.

I've lived with a double-parking problem at work for many many years, and the normal solution is to locate the driver.

I've been through all the options and someone did once suggest leaving keys on desks when going out for lunch, but because of the demise of DOC it's not practical to move the cars of others (unless everyone is familiar with their policy).

John_3:16

1st I wonder if he informed his own insurance?


2nd. My wife had a no fault claim and it still put her insurance up even though all costs came form the other party.

lisyloo

Correct. A claim will often increase premiums AND possibly reduce NCD (if it's not protected).
Fault claims are generally loaded worse than non-fault.

The loading lasts for 3-5 years depending on insurer.
It's also valid on every motoring policy (so if you are a named driver eslewhere).
It's quite possible to approximate these costs to get a ball park figure.
You simply get a quote without the claim, then a quote with the claim (and reduce NDC if appropriate).
Once you have the loading you can multiply by the number of years it applies (I use 3) and the numbr of motoring policies.

Despite the maths it's also worth noting that thes eloading are deferred i.e. have to be paid in future.
So in some situation (like things are tight due to having a baby) it could be worth going down the higher but deferred cost route perhaps.

alistair.long

Barna vs. Hudes Merchandising Corp.
Vehicle A pulled out of a side road intending to turn right. The driver's view was obstructed by parked cards. Vehicle B, approaching from the right, hit Vehicle A on the side. Vehicle B was estimated to be breaching the speed limit.
Who's at fault?
Vehicle A is 100% liable.
The judge considered that exceeding the speed limit, while illegal, is not in itself negligence. Vehicle A should have ensured the major road was safe.



Young v Chester- car parked at night with no lights on, and no street lighting.


Fritz v. Hobson. (1880)- if parked on private property, and causing a obstruction,

vaio

alistair.long wrote: »

Barna vs. Hudes Merchandising Corp.
Vehicle A pulled out of a side road intending to turn right. The driver's view was obstructed by parked cards. Vehicle B, approaching from the right, hit Vehicle A on the side. Vehicle B was estimated to be breaching the speed limit.
Who's at fault?
Vehicle A is 100% liable.
The judge considered that exceeding the speed limit, while illegal, is not in itself negligence. Vehicle A should have ensured the major road was safe.

Young v Chester- car parked at night with no lights on, and no street lighting.

Fritz v. Hobson. (1880)- if parked on private property, and causing a obstruction,

?...........

vaio

Barnabylovesicecream wrote: »

We had a polish registered car park over our drive. Couldn't get out cars out. It is a quiet road with masses of parking - no reason at all to park there. After 24 hours I called the police. They said nothing could be done- if I tried to move it I was liable for damage caused- if we hit it again we would be liable. They couldnt trace owner as registered overseas. They were quite clear that if I touched it to bounce it out of the way the owner could take action against me (I assume for any damage but they didn't specifically say that)

So the fact the car was blocking you would not be an excuse for hitting it.

The police were wrong, if you are blocked in your property by a parked car then it is obstruction and they should have shifted it. It's a different story if you are blocked out of your property

agree with you about not damaging it though